Adobe CC Announcements: What you need to know

Adobe CC Announcements: What you need to know

This morning Adobe announced a new photography-focused plan for Creative Cloud subscribers, new feature additions to Photoshop CC and two apps - an iPhone version of Lightroom Mobile and Photoshop Mix. We've written about all of these things individually, but if you're thoroughly confused about what it all means, click through for the main takeaways.

The thing is that PS is effectively stopping to develop.I mean, there will be updates for Adobe Camera Raw of course, some tweaks etc., but 99% of what photographers need is already done. With each next update there will be 99.9% and 99.99% etc. AFAIK, the last updates were mostly made for video, 3D graphics and user interface of the PS itself. But there will be less and less for 2D photographers and painters.Adobe foresee that less and less users will update regularly, and therefore they do this move. Which means nothing good for users.This 10 Dollar/Euro price for PS is just a limited time advertizement.

Compare the price on Acrobat with its monthly fee. In just 2 years you pay the full price (price before CC) and then you will pay again and again. But does anyone know the difference between Acrobat 9 and 10?The very low price for PS is a very obvious marketing thing. As soon as the shitstorm will calm down, they will double and triple it.

My concern, like many here, is the fact that a subscription service gives way too much control to Adobe. They can change their pricing structure on a whim. Introduce as low of a price as you need to so your competition can't weather the storm, and then ladle on the gravy with price increases when you are the last man standing. Isn't that what monopolies do?

I remember in the earlier days when Adobe charged $450 for a set of fonts. They are the definition of unbridled greed and I have no trust in them. I will stay with my purchased copy of Lightroom, thank you very much.

I'd say that those who whine about CC probably have no idea how to effectively use 95% of the features LR or PS. For those of us that have already used PS for 20 years, and LR for maybe 10, the sheer power of the software for enabling us to turn pixels in to $$'s, including infinite updates, is a grand bargain!!! I spend more then that on coffee every month, which is btw, equally important.

You say, "I'd say that those who whine about CC probably have no idea how to effectively use 95% of the features LR or PS."

Very few people in the world know how to use 95% of PS. It would take a very long time to learn everything its capable of doing and once you do, the next version appears.

So they punish us for not knowing enough? Most of us know enough to do what we need to do and then some. Adobe shouldn't give a flying finger about whether or not the end user turns pixels into dollars. They need to worry about going out of business for not turning their program into dollars.

And what that has to do with anything? The main problem with the subscription model is that you are completely dependent on Adobe's whims. I think this is a great business for them but not necessarily to their users. Have you actually read any of the CC terms of service? Adobe takes no responsibility for anything and guarantees you absolutely nothing in return for eternal payments.

The difference between coffee and CC is that if you're short on money you can stop drinking coffee for a while but you can not skip paying your CC monthly fee.

Now I can perfectly well understand why many like CC model but personally I like to think long-term and also get something in return for my money.

"I'd say that those who whine about CC probably have no idea how to effectively use 95% of the features LR or PS."

That might be true, but a lot of us are whining because Adobe asks us in Europe to pay around 70% more than US users. Wouldn't mind so much if we were get 70% more features, but then I'd have to learn how to use 165% of them to make you happy ;D

It's like selling your soul. Once you subscribe, there can be no going back. Adobe spent millions (if not billions) on this little venture. They made their bed and now they have to lay in it. When they realized most photographers hated it, the monthly price started dropping and now it's down to $10 per month.

My guess is they hired some marketing "expert" when the Cloud was first mentioned a few years back and they assumed (wrongly) that one day everything would be on the cloud and we would all live happily ever after. It may work fine for word processing and spreadsheets, but NOT for PS.

I have to think that the few proponents there are for CC, work someplace where the company pays for it, so sure, why not enjoy it.

For the rest of us that have been using PS since the earliest versions, this seems like corporate suicide for Adobe.

Adobe is heavily developing the Creative Cloud for leading-edge creative professionals. Full CC subscription gives access to nearly all of Adobe's major apps, of which Photoshop is just one of many. Most of those apps are mainly intended for professionals anyway.

The "Photography" CC plan is a bit of an anomaly. It provides Lightroom + Photoshop for half the price of a CC plan for just (say) Dreamweaver. Yet it provides (in my opinion) far more capability, representing far more development effort over the years.

A recent report said that most recent Adobe revenues came from recurring payments including the Creative Cloud. It is the future for their top-end apps.

Why is the "Photography" CC plan a cheap anomaly? I think it is because, unlike most other Adobe apps, Photoshop is widely used by amateurs and photography-only professionals. There is a large market they can sell to at the right price.

I subscribe to the full CC, yet I'm retired. I think it is worth what I get for it.

I think Adobe would argue that people who object to the subscription model are not really their target market for Photoshop. Photoshop goes far beyond "photography" as typical people at DPReview see it, and will continue to be developed for leading-edge professional tasks.

I think Adobe would argue that other people would be better off with Lightroom and/or Elements, both of which are available as "not CC", which are targeted specifically at photographers rather than more general "creative professionals". Lightroom continues to get capability that once needed Photoshop, and Elements, especially given the plugins available for it, does lots of things that older versions of Photoshop didn't.

(Note: I'm going by demonstrations of Elements and what I've read - I don't use it myself. But I do use Lightroom - in fact I consider Photoshop to be a plugin to Lightroom where photography is concerned!)

People examining just the "Photography" CC plan are seeing very little of CC.

You mention CC is only for "Leading Edge" professionals and everyone else that uses PS and other photography and graphics people are no longer welcome.How is that good business?Of all PS users, what percentage are "leading edge" in your estimation?Why would any company knowingly say FU to so many loyal customers?

Adobe has that kind of market share because they have been providing the products people want at a price they have been willing to pay. There are plenty of options out there to go to if Adobe raises prices to high or fails to provide the products their clients demand.

Hm! I've just seen a recent financial report that says they have exceeded their target revenues, and more than half of their recent revenues came from recurring sources such as the Creative Cloud and Marketing Cloud.

What I'm seeing in DPReview is an increasing mismatch between the direction Adobe is taking Photoshop and direction that would be suitable for typical photographers here. Perhaps CC is the wrong model for many people here, but that is because they are no longer Adobe's target market for Photoshop. (Judging by the announcement/presentation that I watched in real time a couple of days ago, they are addressing leading-edge creative professionals. Photoshop is just one part of the CC offering).

If most photographers were in Adobe's target, they would probably be justified in criticising the Cloud model and its pricing. But such photographers may need to re-assess whether Photoshop will ever again be a good match to their real needs. Would Lightroom and Elements be better?

Barry I agree that Photoshop these days is not necessarily a good match for the masses. I always felt that Photoshop was designed for professionals and perhaps serious amateurs from the outset. There was a phase when it seemed that everybody was talking about having "shopped" their pictures. We have all seen basic Photoshop used crudely...these days it is not necessary to use it/own unless complicated serious work is being done. Adobe know this and seem to be going back to their roots which will upset some but professionals will appreciate it. I remember when Dpreview was frequented by leading photographers prepared to share their invaluable experience...things have changed ...they have left and rather than appreciate technological advance it seems that almost every change is greeted with dissension..I just download CC 2014 which will require updating some plugins and exploring new features but it is nice to be able to flick back to the previous version until I have sorted that.

Walter, I agree that Photoshop was designed for such people from the start. But a complication was that there were few alternatives for other people. (I first bought Photoshop 6, in 2001. There were others, but not nearly as many as today). So many of those other people started using Photoshop.

Elements didn't exist (although Photoshop Limited Edition, or "LE", did). Neither did Lightroom. Then when those came along, they were very limited at first, and no alternative to Photoshop. People used to speculate that Adobe were slowing down their development to avoid competing with Photoshop. People said that about (lack of) perspective correction and soft proofing in Lightroom, for example.

I don't think that Adobe are (now) worried about those products competing with Photoshop. They want Lightroom to be ubiquitous. Elements continues to evolve. I hope that (perhaps with Lightroom) those who can't accept the CC model or think that Photoshop is bloated or a rip-off see these alternatives.

For leading-edge creative professionals I believe CC is the future. I don't think there is really a down-side for those people.

For other people, (including me!), there are alternatives. But they won't include new versions of Photoshop. In spite of not being in Adobe's target market for CC, (I'm retired, a pensioner, and a hobbyist photographer who also develops websites, etc), I've subscribed to the full CC, because I think it is a good deal.

I think when amateur photographers have had the chance to examine what the alternatives are, the fuss about CC will die away. It will be seen that Photoshop is not necessarily the ideal product for many such photographers.

LR Mobile isn't really that good an app. Definitely not good enough to consider the subscription for. It's not LR, or even close to LR. If you need a mobile app, Photo Mate 2 for Android seems to be the one worth spending money on. No IOS support, which may be why Adobe only released LR mobile for IOS? Really if you need LR on a tablet, buy a Windows tablet and get the real deal.

I actually own Lightroom 5.4, so I thought downloading the new version would be an improvement. I started to download the 920 megs then thought that I would take a look at what others were saying about the new version. Youtube and other forums rang alarm bells. It seems that this new version is specifically orientated towards mobile phones, which I do not use for pics. It also seems that plenty out there cannot even open the new version. I cancelled the download.I also tried to access adobe.com but these people only want me to view Adobe in my own country, and have essentially dictated to me what sites I can access on the net. That really gets my gander up. Adobe also provide a discounted rate for their US clients while loading up costs to clients outside the US, by as much as 100%. If you want to get off side with the rest of the world that is a sure way to drive potential customers away.Common sense would dictate that you offer options to buy and to rent.

$10 bucks a month… Is that enough to get us holdouts to join the 'Cloud'? I don't know. At least the price is somewhat more reasonable. That said, I refuse to work with a software program that is based on a subscription. It's just not going to happen. I draw issue with the entire premise. If you are OK, with that, go for it. I'm not.

It seems to me the biggest problem people have with this model is there is no guarantee that Adobe won't decide to raise the price on a whim, the second concern being what happens if/when you no longer can or want to pay for the software.

How about a compromise pricing plan? Say, you pay up front for a guaranteed 2, 3 or 5 year license. Say I pay $600 up front and I get to use Photoshop CC for 5 years, regardless any price increases to the monthly fee between now and when my license expires.

Also, when my license expires, if I choose not to renew, PS reverts to a "limited features mode" that allows me to still view and save my files to a different format, but editing features are severely limited.

Like many, I dutifully paid $199 every two years to upgrade thusly: CS2-CS3-CS4-well you get the idea. Since last September, I began paying $10 per month for PS CC & LR plus I have a license to use it on two computers plus I get 20 GB of cloud storage. This costs $240 every two years. That price is good for as long as I am subscribed or until Adobe raises the price of the plan in general. The $199 every two years was never a guaranteed price. You get a lot more with CC.

My price will not increase (nor was it ever supposed to increase) to $20/month after the first year as so many were misinformed. Yes, I checked with Adobe before posting this.

Now there are those folks who only upgraded every other time or only when a must-have feature was released, then I can see the frustration but OTOH, these folks can also be seen as dead weight in terms of the future of PS.

I guess that leaves the objection of "renting". You were already renting PS and didn't know it. If you intend to be a long time customer of Adobe which I will be, I don't see the problem of this pricing model. If I quit being a customer of Adobe's, then I'll probably be laying down my cameras too. I can't tell you how much software I have laying around that has been obsoleted by the OS, the gear, the lack of support.

I could not sign up for a dollar-based subscription account because a) I have no idea what my future exposure might be in my rapidly weakening currency (ZAR) andb) I have no idea how much future storage I might need.

2GB? 20GB 40GB? Not a clue, sorry. I'm heading into the retirement zone - declining income, increasing amount of time to take photographs - who knows where I'll be in 2, 5 or 10 years from now. To commit all to $9.99 (and "We promise we'll never change, ever, ever, really"...) would be stupidity.

So, LR 4.5 is what I've got and where I'll stay. It might be quite enough for my waning powers or not. Neither Adobe nor I know.

But the Interwebs being what they are, I have no doubt someone is already doing (may already have done) something to will leave the rental version of LR in the dust. I look forward to hearing about that.

Point a is interesting, but nothing promises future support or constant pricing. If you are on OS X, your hardware is dropped every few years (up to five now) and software leaves old OSs behind quickly. On Windows, XP was a special case, but with Windows on a yearly cycle, I expect new Windows will support old software for a much shorter period.

Point b is irrelevant - nothing about CC makes you use Cloud Storage for images. You store and work with images on your own hard drives, which you will have to buy as always.

Question: how many of you own a car? and how many rent one, week by week, year on year?

CC is finished. Adobe's increasingly desperate offers are a clear sign. Its recent questionnaire to loyal customers clearly showed it understands the problem all too well. Only an idiot places the tools of their livelihood in the hands of another with no effective control. I imagine that the latest announcements are one last push to give the pro rental camp a chance to prove the growing number of dissenters wrong before the shareholders say enough. If there is no volte-face then expect to see Adobe's value plummet. It will be sad but all empires crumble eventually - usually because the leadership lost the plot.Before the Adobe stooges leap into action - I have a fully licensed Creative Suite 6, and two additional Photoshop licences. One of the latter is a retrograde because Adobe pulled support for plug-ins worth way, way more than their software; I trust Adobe about as far as I can pee.

In the US 'a lot of people lease cars' in the UK I quote 'less than 1% of all cars in the UK are covered by car leasing deals'. The UK tax regime, the penalties on high mileage leases and the lack of a residual equity all count against leasing. My major gripe is not features its trust - a little while back an authentication server problem locked CC users out worldwide. Prior to that three people in my household were told to change their Adobe passwords because Adobe had been hacked. If my personal machine is hacked I wipe and go to (multi-layered) back-ups, if my laptop goes down I go down the road to buy a new one and restore from backup. IF (when) Adobe goes down....? And Clouds don't work in deserts or inside bunkers..and occasionally I do (in some cases both). I neither want nor need wet string between my computer and the tools I need to do the job - just who does? - that model of computing was destroyed by the PC market and for good reason. Those who forget the lessons of history

Not sure why you try to get Internet over wet string (we use tubes over here!) but while the CC implementation of license checking is very stupid, you get a minimum of 60 days offline if you have an annual subscription terms so unless you are moving to the desert (in which case, why do you need a PC?) I think you will be okay.

I can fully understand Adobe's rationale behind this but I can not endorse it any way. Subscription only might seem good idea only if you are thinking in terms of next month. But the problem with it all becomes quite obvious when the economic downturn comes round again. With perpetual licensing one could easily skip a upgrade cycle or two and still get all the work done but with subscription it comes down to cutting something else off. Mostly likely some of the staff. Subscription model makes budgeting hugely inflexible.

As Windows 7 is supported until 2020 at least Photoshop CS6 will do just fine. Fortunately there's plenty of good RAW converters around (DXO Optics, Capture One, AfterShot) Lightroom won't be missed much.

You haven't been able to skip an upgrade since before CC . They had already announced single release upgrades. They still offer CS6 and Lightroom, they have continued to release ACR updates for new cameras for the perpetual versions despite no compulsion to do so. No one is forced to go CC I don't understand the animosity. It works for me. It doesn't work for others. People keep saying their files will be impossible to open, then advise getting alternatives. If they can't open my existing files then they are not an alternative are they. If they can then loss of CC won't mean loss of my files.

I have to agree. I bought LR 5 as a front end for CS6 and as digital asset management system (LR has catalog-based search function for photos), but frankly haven't used it much. I detect a very strong opposition among photographers to the subscription plan, and frankly I'm one of them. I think Adobe misread their customers. It's not the same in the graphic arts crowd, as there aren't many other Creative Suites out there. For photographers there are several other options that still don't have a subscription plan.

CC isn't the only subscription model in my life (rent, internet, telephone, cell phone, government, etc. etc.) If LR goes subscription, I will continue to use the latest version on my computer, and that will be the end of it. Enough hands in my pocket!!

In the announcement was said (buried and easily missed) that Adobe is also releasing an SDK (“software development kit”) for mobile devices, which will let third party developers embed select Adobe technologies. So we can might expect that Adobe technologies can be incorporated in other applications such as Instagram and the like with shake reduction, straitening horizon and blur reduction as an example.

How many hundreds of times do Adobe have to say that LR will remain as a standalone programme before people actually take notice? LR is/will be part of CC but you CAN still buy it as a separate programme (although you will not then be able to use LR mobile).

Just take ONE look at adobe's website to see for yourself that LR is, as of today, part of the CC plan and that the 'standalone' version isn't available for sale anymore. The option to download and buy is gone!! Removed from Adobe's website.

To get LR you will need to subscribe to the Photography CC program and rent it.

Are you all really this stupid? Here's the link to the same page in the USA. http://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/software._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_mostpopular.html

Adobe have made it plainly clear that for the foreseeable future LR will be available as a standalone. I don't actually care I have CC but I get irritated by the misinformation that being spread by whining adobe haters.

So. There seems to be a way for now to purchase the standalone. However, for the stupid people out there's sake, can u tell me how the customer "off the street" visiting www.adobe.com actually navigates to the catalog page you linked? It must be really obvious and intuitive and I'm just stupid.

> "However, for the stupid people out there's sake, can u tell me how the customer "off the street" visiting www.adobe.com actually navigates to the catalog page you linked?"

A link to the perpetual version is on the main Lightroom page. It's below the CC price boxes at the bottom of the page and it's labeled "Upgrade to Lightroom 5 >" (Note that it looks like neither the CC boxes nor the perpetual link appear if you are signed in to your Adobe ID -- or at least my ID, which Adobe knows has a current subscription, so they likely suppressed all the purchasing links.)

And as others have pointed out, Lightroom perpetual can be purchased from hundreds of vendors other than Adobe.

I use Lightroom 75% of the time for my workflow. If they go to subscription-only with it, screw them. And Lightroom for ios only? As I said, screw them. (Because they ARE screwing us, no matter how one attempts to rationalize it.)

I think LR is already subscription-only.. At least I can't find any option to buy LR other than thru the $9.99/month model. And it's unclear, would LR be deactivated after the year's period if I don't continue paying?

For UK users go here https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/catalog/software._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_mostpopular_uk.html#Select to buy Lightroom full. Cost is £102 No monthly fees, CC, etc. despite what all the whiners keep on saying. If you actually take the time to find the truth, LR will remain as as standalone product outside of CC if that's what you want.

"Overwhelming positive feedback..." I must be on a different planet, because it sure as hell ain't in this neck of the woods. But it's of little relevance anymore. With the introduction of the subscriber model, the longtime commitment I had made to successive upgrades of PS over the years (since 1998) came quietly to its end.

No you are just on a different website. Objections to CC here are a league above every other forum I use and when I actually talk to other photographers most of them welcome it as they now have software that they could not justify buying before.

HiThis is probably a stupid question, but please indulge me.Where do I find the update as I have gone through the update process on my version of Photoshop-14.2.1 x64 - and am told the program is up to date. However, I can find none of the changes within the program.(Polite) comments welcomed.Thanks

Even if they get 10 out of 100 people that formerly downloaded and used PS illegally and who now have subscribed to CC its a win for Adobe....

I'll dare to say that many if not most of the complainers on DPReview are those people that have always used PS illegally and are only mad at Adobe because Adobe took their most beloved illegally used software from them...

Too many assumptions there. Seems that, rather than address the criticisms, you choose to insult those who complain.

For your information, a lot of people use Adobe software legally through their company accounts. Professionals with legal accounts also criticize Adobe as often as anyone; they are handing over their own cash after all.

And no, Adobe CC didn't do away with illegal new versions. You really need to learn a little about the internet, or you will be doomed to making laughable comments on forums ;-)

You really think I expected you would say anything different then you did?

No of course I didn't!You can criticize Adobe for what you want they are NOT going to listen to you.

I know you all hate me for defending this new income model. Even though I had hoped never to be stuck into software this way. I choose for going ahead and being able to use the latest and greatest tools. To be part of a growing community of creative professionals that love using Adobe Creative Software.

Who cares if you update or not?Who cares if your boss ain't going to update?If he doesn't then its up to you to convince him to do so.If you refuse, then don't complain. Its your choice!

You have choice. Its a take it or leave it deal.

Nobody forces you to subscribe. But its your choice not to do so. Its your choice to be left behind. Its your choice to not being able to use some really great new tools.

Still you're acting like little childs that don't get their candies while walking in the candystore.

If that was directed at me (as it was a reply with the word "you" in it), then you are still making silly assumptions. As it happens, I have two subscriptions. A company one for employees and a personal one for non-company work.

By the way, the plural of child is children, not childs. Oh the irony. lol

"I'll dare to say that many if not most of the complainers on DPReview are those people that have always used PS illegally and are only mad at Adobe because Adobe took their most beloved illegally used software from them..."

This is just nonsense. The CC version is available as a "cracked" version. The subscription enslavement model isn't goign to stop the warez users, it's just goign to hit the lefit users.

My career was in the computer industry, working for a company which made part of its income from software revenues. So part of my own income came (in effect) from software revenues, which for our own operating systems tended to be on subscription/rental. So I have a different view from many people here, and I am comfortable with the CC model. (And I don't see software piracy as a victimless action).

I have long said that I believe the first software to be considered by club-level photographers should be Lightroom or the equivalent, rather than Photoshop which has been the traditional first product in the UK. Then editing software can be added if needed. I know people who make effective use of Photoshop Elements, with or without Lightroom. I also know many people who use Photoshop and struggle with it, while they clearly don't need anything beyond Elements or the equivalent.

Photoshop is not a monopoly. Even Adobe don't think so, hence Elements, which is not CC.

My issue, like many here in Europe, is that we are asked to pay a LOT more than US users. The cheapest subscription option in the US is $9.99, but here it's €12.99, which is over $17USD. We may have higher sales taxes, and porting to a foreign language may not be cheap either, but it shouldn't almost double the damn price.

The problem with your comment Barry Pearson is that it does not acknowledge that for years certain markets, e.g. where I live, Australia were being charged at times over double the price for the same software.

The usual excuse was "localisation" and "local support".Only the local support was a joke if indeed it existed and the localisation for the moSt part appeared to be adding the menu item "English(Australian)" the to language menu, and then giving us US spelling anyway.Presumably a few place names were added to a dictionary.The local support died a total death about 10 years a with a ubiquitous intrnet and IP telephony.

Even in the last few years the prices changed when you logged in from an APNIC as opposed an ARIN IP.Same software, served from the same servers, in the same data center, different price

A lot of ppl don't feel too bad pirating when they know they will get screwed if they buy legally.

I live in the UK, which has suffered for many years from over-pricing compared to the USA, just as Australia has. I have even complained on-line in Adobe forums, using the term "rip-off".

But - that didn't change my views on piracy! I didn't have to buy, Adobe doesn't have a true monopoly, there are alternative products, and I didn't have to buy nearly every upgrade. It was (and is) a cost-benefit judgement to do so, taken as a hobbyist. Buying Photoshop upgrades was one of the cheaper aspects of my photography, far cheaper than petrol, and possibly cheaper than ink+paper.

I believe many of the people who pirate Photoshop are not professionals who might claim they need it to make a living. (Would such people be able to claim it against tax as a business expense anyway?) If someone doesn't need it to make a living, what justification do they offer?

I would guess that the main motivation for the price cut is to capture the many people who use pirated versions of CS5 or CS6. This is very similar to how iTunes helped the record industry reduce the amount of illegally downloaded music.

At 9.99 I would consider subscribing, but since my version of Lightroom is sufficient for me now, I'll wait for a little bit. It's highly likely that they'll slowly raise the price when subscriber numbers stabilize.

I think people who actually paid for Photoshop CS5 or CS6, thinking they would pay an upgrade price of $200 every 2 years got the shaft. Moving to CC, they can consider it a 20% price increase. People who have purchased a license should have been given an option for a $8/month plan. I think these people have a legitimate complaint. And it's their loyalest customer.

However, these people's voices are mixed in with people who have mostly pirated the Photoshop for years, and are now leaving the most vial hateful comments against Adobe in the forums. It's like a guy being kicked out of an institution of luxury housing where most people lived free because it was subsidized by a generous minority. After staying there for a decade, they are now returning to burn it down because they started asking for the minimum maintenance fees. It kinda looks uncool in the eyes of the public.

Getting CC was an easy decision for me. I was dropping $80-100/year on Lightroom, and had an old version of PS (student, great deal). For $120/yr I stay current with every release of LR and get a full version of PS for the times I need it. $30 for access to photoshop on every device I own? Yeah, that's a value proposition I'll take.

Adobe should really listen to people who want to buy it rather than rent. Charge $999 up front, then $200 every 2 years for upgrades. Some people actually want to pay this rather than $10/month. The difference is if they don't pay the $200 upgrade fee, they should be able to use CC for as long as they want without the latest upgrades. The customers would be happy. And just to prove it has nothing to do with people wanting to pirate software, they should leave the always-online requirement for license verification in place. Who has a computer (that can run the latest photoshop) but can't connect to the Internet at least once in 30 days? Probably no one. They probably don't even know Photoshop CC exists because they don't read the news on the Internet. The Internet requirement is really a non-issue.

If the Adobe business model is successful how long will it be before Apple and Microsoft go the same way with their operating systems?

How robust are Adobe? Even the largest companies can fold (remember Kodak?). If Adobe fail as a company what will happen to your ability to use the software after the first failed attempt to log into the Adobe servers? What will happen to your 20Gb of Cloud storage?

Why should a hobbyist have to pay to have the latest features they don't need and why would a professional place their work entirely in the hands of another company over which they have no control?

The business model stinks and the more people that refuse to engage with it the better. Low price offers are a good sign. It is an indication that insufficient users are renting to make the scheme profitable enough.

You make a very good point. What happens if you've tied your future there and Adobe isn't any longer ... . At least if your apps and your images are on your computer, you can keep using them as you find another solution.

What happens if your cable provider goes out of business? Your cell phone company? Your car company? Your bank? Look, no one is forcing you to use Adobe, there are lots of free options and paid option; use one of them and quit stressing over Adobe.

There actually are people who prefer this method of software delivery. If Adobe goes under, who cares? I back up all my files, I have no brand loyalty and I use whatever fits my workflow.

@String The Lightroom catalog and Photoshop files you backed up will become unreadable if CC is discontinued. Yes, you do get to keep the original RAW and the exported JPEGs, but what happens to all the layered edits? The comments? The smart folders? All dead and gone.

The analogies you gave are inaccurate because they do not destroy any existing work of yours. Cars keep working when the company dies. Cable company dying doesn't prevent you from viewing any TV shows you recorded in the past. Phones bought from a bankrupt carrier keep working if you switch SIMs, and even if you can't, all the information left on the phone can be moved to a new phone via wifi or USB.

The bank analogy is the closest one, because there you do have the risk of losing your existing work (money). However, banks are heavily regulated to ensure they rarely go bankrupt, and they are required to have insurance so that you get some amount back even if they do go bankrupt. Adobe's plan offers no such safety.

@ quiquaeLR Cat will not become unreadable if CC is discontinued as LR is still a standalone product and a lot (me included) have LR5.X as a stand alone product already.

PS files that I back up? RAW, JPG and TIF - pretty much readable by any editing product out there. Adobe(CC) stops working - DL a copy of CS6 and you have access to all your PSDs.

Do you seriously think Adobe is going anywhere? Personally, I really couldn't care less what you use; I'm happy with CC as for me, its a lot cheaper and easier than buying full blown LR/PS and doing upgrades every version.

@String20 years is more than enough time for software to fade into irrelevancy and vanish. Lotus 1-2-3 looked pretty impregnable back in the days, too.

@NetMageI am now digitizing my 20+ year old concert tapes using a nice Pioneer tape deck from early 1990s that I picked up on an auction site. Once I am done, I'll sell off the tape deck, but I will keep the tapes just in case. I have already done the same for my VHS tapes, although I had a shop do that one for me.

20 years from now, I will not be able to do the same with CC files.

I have the CC subscription and do not plan to cancel it, but I am being careful to export all the results to JPEG or TIFF immediately, and treat PSD as no more than a disposable scratchpad. As a data processing software I have no problem with the subscription model; as a data storage medium, no way.

Unfortunately I think that is probably true, but PSD is no different than XCF or even the various RAW formats - at some point, I think Adobe will start dropping ACR support for out of production RAW formats and the same could happen for even open source RAW processors if no one is interested in them. Are you converting your RAW files to DNG?

Well, all I have to do to defend myself against RAW obsolescence is to maintain installation images of Windows 7 and your favorite non-subscription RAW developer program. Short of an apocalyptic war there is virtually no possibility that we will be left with no way to run current Windows applications in the next 20 years, if not 40 years.

@SantaFeBillThe idea is not to use new OS to run old software, but to keep a copy of an existing OS to run existing software in the future.

Windows XP did a decent job of running Windows 3.1 apps, and XP runs on existing open source virtual machines under Win 7/8. You can probably even get Win 3.1 itself to run in a VM with some effort (I've never tried). For other OSes there exist VMs, WINE, and PC emulators, all open source and actively developed. Windows software is such a huge field that it is hard to imagine general interest dwindling to a point where no one wants to develop them.

@ String.How is CC now cheaper for you? The regular price is 25 Euro/month = 300 Euro/year. I don't remember the stand alone PS price, but it was around 1000 Euro. (I don't know the update price) New PS version came every two years. So at best, you will pay now as much as you would pay if you were buying EVERY single PS update. Or more.The price 10$/Euro per month is solely an advertisement, which is by the way runs till the end of this August.

@NetMage "The price is subject to change, but we will always notify you beforehand."

So probably €12.29 is the next year after €9.99. But it will grow. Otherwise there would not be any sense in €25 regular price. Also compare stand alone price of other products with their monthly fee. Acrobat cost around €600 for stand alone version, now it is the same €25. I doubt, that PS with ~€1000 price will cost less.They are just waiting when the shitstorm will calm down.

I wish companies like Adobe would realise that outside of the US in the Third World, where I live, there are lots of creatives for where a handful of dollars is a lot of cash, especially where exchange rates are more than 10 to 1 to the dollar. Adobe - be world aware!!

Holw do these iPad applications differ from Photoshop Touch that I have on my Nexus 7? For instance changes I make on the Nexus are synced with my CC cloud storage and hence with my desktop. BTW the Lightroom Queen says existing photography plan users will retain their existing 20 gig CC storage and not be downgraded to 2gig.

I am a part-time pro and mostly work in fine art, reproductions of artwork and restorations of old photos. I shoot mostly in Raw and have been using PS for a bunch of years. For a time, it was great to be a NAPP member and participate in various Adobe's events. The feeling of "belonging" was good. Like many photographers, I was royally annoyed with the onset of the subscription-only formula. I updated from CS5 to CS6 and decided to stick with it for as long as possible. After the initial annoyance abated, I realized/accepted the fact that Adobe is a for-profit business whose main goal is to maximize stockholders' value. Their marketing and finance decided to go that way ad there is nothing to complain about, excluding the hassle of changing platforms if one does not want to subscribe. Even the model of a low intro price and subsequent increases was not invented by them. The somewhat bitter lesson is: we are not a large happy family of creative people, profit is the name of the game.

The last time I updated Lightroom 5.2 it would not work and had to revert back to earlier version. I was not alone. I would be happy if Adobe sorted this issue out instead of messing about with Mobile versions

Today, I'm not a CC subscriber and will continue using CS6 for years to come. However, the reality is that the "bug" for a subscription model is out there and it's only a matter of time until many of us will eventually cave in if we need the latest and greatest in photo processing feature and power. Adobe and other software giants who are currently using the subscription model realize that eventually CS6 will be a thing of the past as they continue to improve and advance their CC features (not the case today); thus we will all gradually get "sucked into it".

Advanced features are key but it'll take time to get there and convince me to join CC. For me personally, I'll consider joining the subscription model when enough advances justify the need for my work.

As far as iPhone & iPad APPs, they're nice perks but they're not a selling point for me at all and agree with Joe & Magnus3D about being a Dino...

@Prognathous & @RichRMAOver the past 15yrs, I've used/tried different options but would NEVER consider any of them as alternatives. Even the freeware out there that claim to be an alternative aren't robust enough and don't fit well in my workflow. Don't get me wrong, they work for some but not for me.

Again, for me, I will simply continue using LR5 & CS6 until CC has a significant leap in features then I'll consider the subscription concept; this may be couple years from now...

I think a lot of people initially bought Photoshop and never used any of the features that weren't also in other programs like PaintShop. For those folks, switching to something other then Photoshop makes a lot of sense. But for those of us who fully use the extensive features of Photoshop, something like Paintshop or Gimp isn't even in the same ballpark. There are NO alternatives for those of us who use the full capabilities of Photoshop. It's perfectly fine if you only use the functionality provided by Paintshop Pro -- but you are very mistaken to assume that everyone else only needs those limited capabilities.

Unless you value your time at $0, switching to alternate software is an expensive proposition. Would you pay $10 to have an extra leisure hour? $20? $50? If you could buy an entire week of commitment free time, would you spend $1000? I ask because to learn a new package, if you're even a moderately competent user of PS, you're going to spend a week of evenings learning how to do the things you currently do in PS. Yes, they're similar, but they're not exactly the same, in the same spot, with the same shortcuts, or the same effect values. $1000 - a pittance in retraining time - buys you 8 years of continuous updates in Photoshop and Lightroom.

Would you rather spend time modifying your workflow for nothing more than to save a few dollars, or spend that time working on your art.

@-thorn,your cell phone IS working if you change the company. You just change the SIM-card (in Eurasia at least). In many countries you even preserve your tel. number.You preserve all your telephone contacts, messages and all info you had on it.

Yes my phone works without a contract.It is unlocked and I buy a SIM card and pre pay minutes/megabytes. I did not say my phone minutes were free. I said I have no contract.If I get peeved off with the phone company, I buy a SIM from a different company and there is no penalty apart from the loss of any unused minutes and the cost of the SIM. I think a SIM is abou $2AUD.I pay more for my phone but am not locked in.It's quite common as far as I know in most places, except the US and their "free" market.

I must be a dino. I have no interest in manipulating any images on my i-anything. I don't see the point in using Photoshop AND Lightroom. LR is simply PS-lite and if you have PS, the "free" LR is of no use unless you really have poor cataloging skills and need a program to keep track of your stuff. As for the new features of PS, well, Adobe has always introduced new touch-feely stuff to attract people to update. In this case, they are giving it to those subscribed and are trying to tempt the hold-outs. I don't need to blur my photos and selecting according to sharpness is something I don't get. If I have a shot with great bokeh, I want to select the sharp part? Most people want to select the model so they can create fake bokeh. I'm sure there's a use for it but I can't figure any for my use so for those who can, enjoy. The only use I've seen for sharp masking is in the selection of a group of photos where you can immediately see which ones nailed focus.

Then we are two dinosaurs here, because i don't see the point in Adobe wasting human resources, time and money on developing for the small platform and it's userbase which Apple's products are in the real world.

They should focus their efforts on pleasing the main userbase instead of a small insignificant group of users using a specific set of devices from one specific manufacturer.

If you think Lightroom is Photoshop Lite, you have no idea what Lightroom is about.

There are lots of pros who know Photoshop inside and out, but have talked about how they spend most of their time in Lightroom now. Because Lightroom is a better, faster way to do a lot of things Photoshop does. Doesn't replace Photoshop. It's like owning an efficient commuter car and a big pickup truck, they both have four wheels but are for different purposes and both deserve to exist.

"LR is simply PS-lite".... do a search for 'non-destructive editing' and you'll see this is really not the case. They are two entirely different types of product, each with their strengths and weaknesses. Having said that, for most photographers, LR + a cheapo bitmap editor - preferably but not essentially 16-bit - would be perfect combo. PS is overkill.

Something that doesn't go up? Easy. Perpetually licensed software, like CS6 or everything from competitors. Pay once, use forever. This is a very predictable pricing model that benefits the end user and prevents the software vendor from raising prices at will (something Adobe can do with impunity knowing that the project files of their users are held hostage, as CC is the only program that can properly edit them).

I guess you haven't been thinking very hard about your software. All software is a trap if you don't have a plan for migrating your data out of it, if that becomes necessary. You could lose access to any piece of software for several reasons that are just as likely as a subscription product becoming too expensive.

If CC becomes too expensive for me, I'll convert my "project files", with their edits, into a format that lets me migrate them to another software app. It's not rocket science. And I have a plan to do that for every single piece of software that I use that contains data that I want to save (writing, pictures, emails etc.). I've already had to migrate my emails through 5 different applications and from Mac to Windows and back to Mac, starting with Compuserve email from 1992. This is nothing new, and it has nothing to do with the sales model of the software.

> "It's confounding that any rational human being would defend Adobe's subscription model."

What an odd statement. Renting, as a form of acquiring the use of a product or service, has been around since the dawn of recorded history.

Deciding whether it makes sense for you in any particular case is just a simple cost-benefit analysis. You can buy a car or lease one, right? Is it "confounding" that car companies offer these choices? Are you "confounded" by the millions of cars that are leased every year by individuals -- and here's a kicker for you -- companies with very cold-eyed accounting departments?

They do state that at the end of the first year you are automatically renewed at normal price, which now is $19.98 a month, and it would be automatic at one full year renewal payment, so actual cost will double after the first year, and be billed for the full year, not billed monthly.

There is also no mention about how the LR license is treated at the end of the first year, or if it upgrades throughout the first year for free.

@ String: The money isn't the issue. The issue is that if you stop subscribing, the software stops working. The same isn't true with non-subscription software. You pay for it once, and that version keeps working even if you never upgrade to another version or pay Adobe another dime. I would have no complaints against the subscription model if you could stop subscribing and lose only access to further updates. That would be fair. But Adobe CC as it stands is for suckers and apologists and the self-loathing.

Sorry, but those who think $10 price will stay forever are idiots. In Germany this advertisement (10 Euro) ends on 31 August this year. Then it is 25 Euro/month.Do you calculations once again, you Adobe's trolls.